Skip to comments.
Why the Left Hates the Ten Commandments
conservativetruth.org
^
| Doug Patton
Posted on 09/01/2003 12:44:40 PM PDT by webber
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
1
posted on
09/01/2003 12:44:40 PM PDT
by
webber
To: webber
Why do we continue to call it the 'Left'? Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist". But don't call them leftist. Call them late for dinner if you want but don't call them 'Leftists'. They are not the left wing of our government. They don't really believe in our form of government. They only use it as a means to an end. The end is Socialism at best(see France) or Communism at worst(see life under Hillary).
To: daveoverpar
3
posted on
09/01/2003 1:12:28 PM PDT
by
cody32127
(If Democrats are not evil, then evil has no meaning)
To: daveoverpar
You forgot my all time fanvorite The national scoialist democrat party.
4
posted on
09/01/2003 1:12:34 PM PDT
by
dts32041
("moderate Arab" he's the one who detonates his bomb via remote control.)
To: solitonic; ConservativeMan55; Byron_the_Aussie; NewLand; LiteKeeper; daughterofTGSL; TigersEye; ...
May God give us a million more Roy Moores. Ping!
To: Hyacinth Bucket
Thanks for the Ping!!!!!!!
To: daveoverpar
Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist".
I wholeheartedly agree. We have a bill in the California state senate that effectively gives property rights over to the indian tribes, SB 18. The bill states the indians have a right to in camera court hearings, just like good old Joe Stalin. That is they can call the property owner to court, take away his property, with no trial and no witnesses. The only information or notice the public will get is a transcript of the hearing. This is exactly how the USSR did things. Someone would disappear and they would be executed or sent off to Siberia. Their families would get a copy of the hearing in the mail at a later date, that was all. We have more communists in our state government than any other state, I'll bet.
Here it is in the bill text:
the court shall conduct its proceedings in camera and shall seal records of the proceeding and papers filed with the court.
To: webber
Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won. After all, the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds. Also he he probably could have gotten a stay until the case was heard.
Instead he deliberately chose to appeal on the grounds that no Federal court has the right to order a state official to violate state law, even if it finds that law counter to the US Constitution. In effect he said the Alabama Constitution outweighs the US Constitution. He totally ignored the 14th Ammednment in his argument as well. Naturally SCOTUS was not about to agree with that line of reasoning. Judge Moore's agenda clearly went beyond the monument itself, and keeping the monument was secondary to that agenda.
8
posted on
09/01/2003 1:36:20 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: Hugin
Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won. Winning for the sake of winning does not seem to be Judge Moore's goal. There is a higher principle involved. Judge Moore has stated over and over that the issue has always been about, "Can the state acknowledge (not establish) God?"
77% of Alabamans support the display of the 10 Commandments at the courthouse. Keeping/removing the monument is entirely a states rights matter and FEDERAL Judge Myron Thompson overstepped his authority on this matter. Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made.
To: webber; Hugin
Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left? You're all wrong: displaying the Decalogue in ANY form violates the liberal's first commandment ("...thou shalt not tell Us what to do - We're supposed to tell you...") and their second commandment ("...thou shalt not make Us feel guilty by rubbing Our Noses in the truth...").
As for Moore: of all the postings I've read, Hugin's post in #8 hits the closest to the truth.
10
posted on
09/01/2003 3:08:23 PM PDT
by
solitas
To: webber
There's one that reads "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?"
To: webber
Off for mosquitos, garlic for vampires, Ten Commandments for leftists!
To: webber
The left hates the Ten Commandments so they can starve a young woman in Pinellas County Florida who is a disabled woman, not comatose. Please stop by the Terri Schiavo threads for action phone numbers and emails. If you are short on time, here's AG JOHN ASHCROFT'S EMAIL ADDRESS: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov
The Judge in Pinellas is setting the date for Terri's "exit protocol" on September 11, 2003.
FYI: Terri's is feeling better today.
Webber, please ping your friends to help out. This is about everyone, not just Floridians.
13
posted on
09/01/2003 3:21:40 PM PDT
by
floriduh voter
(TO JOIN TERRI PING LIST CONTACT kimmie7)
To: Hyacinth Bucket
Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made. You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Being a later Ammendment, it also supercedes the the 9th and 10th Ammendments when they conflict. That's the basis of Judge Thompson's decision. While I think he is wrong in deciding that the monument constitutes the establishment of a religion, I think Judge Moore was also wrong in his legal argument.
14
posted on
09/01/2003 3:37:15 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: Hugin
....the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds....When and where has that been tested?
15
posted on
09/01/2003 3:49:47 PM PDT
by
Byron_the_Aussie
(http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
To: webber
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=434 Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937
In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order." Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.
Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937
...A. The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
......1. Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
......2. Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
......3. Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
......4. Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)
...B. Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
......1. The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
......2. When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism
...C. Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
......1. Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
......2. Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
......3. Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
......4. Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
......5. Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
......6. Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons
...D. Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"
...E. Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
......1. Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
.........a. Terror will only drive Religion underground
.........b. Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
.........c. So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
......2. Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
.........a. Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
.........b. Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
............(1) Cause financial and sexual scandals
............(2) See that this is given a high profile in the news
............(3) Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
......3. Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church
...F. When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
......1. National Consensus
......2. Popular Mandate
......3. National Pacification
......4. Pluralism
......5. Global Community
......6. Economic Justice
......7. Economic Democracy
......8. Liberation Theology
......9. Direct Action
...G. Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
16
posted on
09/01/2003 3:53:02 PM PDT
by
steplock
(www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
To: Byron_the_Aussie
SCOTUS ruled a while back that having "In God We Trust" on the money was not a First Amendment violation, because it was a cultural expression, and not the establishment of a religion. Various SCOTUS justices have stated in interviews when asked about the 10 Commandments displayed in their building, along with Hamurabi's code and the Greek goddess of Justice, that the display is justified on the same grounds.
17
posted on
09/01/2003 4:41:31 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: Hugin
Excerpt of the 14th amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So you agree then that Federal Judge Thompson should have practiced judicial restraint and is the one who violated the law by mis-using and abusing the 14th Amendment even when it clearly did not apply in this case. The display of the monument, in no shape or form, impinged on anyone's constitutional rights. The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right.
To: Hugin
You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Ask for a jury trial on a traffic ticket.
19
posted on
09/01/2003 4:47:51 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Hyacinth Bucket
The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right. Didn't ya know? Thompson and crew are free to invent constitutional "rights" at will.
20
posted on
09/01/2003 4:49:29 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson